Neither is the case. As the commission's chief executive, Andrew Hind, has said: "Our report does not give the charity a clean bill of health."

Panorama said that some of Interpal's partner charities in Gaza and the West Bank were linked to Hamas and were promoting violence and hate.

Included in a wealth of material Panorama passed on to the commission was video evidence of young girls at an event organised by one of Interpal's partner charities being encouraged to sing: "We all sacrifice ourselves for our country" and "we answer your call and make of our skulls a ladder to your glory, a ladder."

Another clip of girls dancing to a tune with the lyrics: "Fasten your bomb-belt oh would-be martyr and fill the square with blood so that we get back our homeland."

A woman, who was organising another event was seen taking the microphone and telling the children: "To martyrs in every time and place… to the rich blood and to the wounds which have drawn the identity of Islamic land."

In paragraph 60 of its report, the commission acknowledged that the material "seemed to indicate that certain local partners funded by the charity promoted terrorist ideology or activities among their beneficiaries. However, the inquiry could not verify to its satisfaction each of these item's provenance or accuracy. In order for the inquiry to draw firm conclusions from the material, it would need proof that the material was found at particular identifiable local partners, and/or showed activities which could be proved to have been carried out at a particular identifiable partner, during a particular period of time."

MediaGuardian.co.uk said that a commission spokeswoman has since made clear that it did not actually investigate our material because the commission had not seen its role as being to "prove or disprove" Panorama's allegations. "The purpose of the inquiry was not to look at all the allegations made in the programme" she said.

Instead, as she told MediaGuardian.co.uk: "The purpose of the inquiry was not to look at all the allegations made in the programme, but to look at the material supplied by the BBC to identify the specific regulatory issues for the commission. We looked at these specific issues and set out what our findings were and what, if any, action was required from the charity in response."

The commission, it seems, was only concerned with what steps Interpal took to ensure that Interpal's partner charities were not engaging in the kind of incitement to violence and hatred activities highlighted by Panorama.

Why the Commission confined itself to such a narrow procedural remit is unclear. It does not appear from the footnotes of the commission's report that they gathered much original material of their own, nor whether they travelled to the West Bank or Gaza to conduct an in-depth investigation.

However, in terms of the limited procedural scope of the commission's inquiry, its findings were, in fact, highly critical of Interpal. There were criticisms of the charity under each of the four main headings addressed by the commission.

The commission cited an absence of "rigour" and "diligence" in Interpal's vetting procedures for partner charities in the West Bank and Gaza, a "failure to deliver on the new (vetting) processes", which the commission thought had been agreed in 2003, and a complete severing of Interpal's links to the Union for Good, an organisation of global charities, of which Interpal was its heart and whose president is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

This severing of Interpal and the Union of Good has been ordered by the commission, not simply because al-Qaradawi has extolled the virtues of suicide bombers killing defenceless civilians and spoken of the need to support "martyrs" with "financial jihad" even though "women cry for joy" at their death, but because of a "lack of clarity surrounding the constitution, organisational structure and membership of the Union for Good".

It follows that it is quite simply wrong for the Interpal chairman Ibrahim Hewitt to claim "vindication " and that after "a most rigorous process, these accusations have been refuted by the inquiry". There has been chastisement, not "vindication".

Indeed, the reality is that the commission's decision "not to look at" Panorama's central allegation, leaves unresolved and, in effect, unregulated – the nub of what we raised.

For the commission, as regulator, appears to have absolved itself from the act of regulating, content to pass that evidentiary responsibility to the regulated body – Interpal – by extensively criticising Interpal for not having followed verification procedures as required by the commission.

The commission reveals that following transmission of Panorama, Interpal trustees just "accepted the responses" from its Palestinian partner charities that they were not promoting hatred and violence "without adequate further investigation".

It discloses that Interpal sent questionnaires to its partner charities with questions like: "Does your charity urge hatred and violence? Or do your employees do so?" To which one charity responded: "The society goals don't encourage incitement on hatred or violence. Employees of the society don't practice any activity in this regard." Another charity replied to the same question with: "We don't support hatred or violence, and none of our staff use this method. Our goal is to help Palestinian women and children." The commission held that this approach was "inadequate".

We are satisfied from our own research that everything we said in the programme can be substantiated.

John Ware was the Panorama reporter who presented Faith, Hate and Charity, the July 2006 documentary on Interpal.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".